Madhya Pradesh Court September 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sameer JaIn Vs. Satish Kumar Yadav
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
1 W.P.NO.14872/12(I).27.9.2012. Smt. Varsha Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Heard on the question of admission. The petitioneRs.plaintiffs have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 3.8.2012 (Ann. P.1) passed by Additional District Judge, Pipariya Distt. Hoshangabad in Co.No.21-A/12 whereby the application of respondents/ defendants filed under 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment in the written statement has been allowed. The petitioneRs.counsel after taking me through the averments of the petition along with the impugned order argued that the impugned amendment was proposed on behalf of the respondent after closing the evidence of the plaintiffs and by way of this amendment the entire nature of the defence of the defendants is going to be changed, therefore impugned order is not sustainable under the law and prayed for dismissal of such application by admitting and allowing this petition. Having heard the counsel at...
Mukesh Kurmi Vs. Collector Sagar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
Writ Petition No.15111/12. 27.9.2012 Shri Ashish Kurmi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Nirmala Nayak, learned Govt. Adv.for the State-respondents on advance copy. Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuing the appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the notice of the respondent no.2 (Annexure-P-2) whereby, he has been directed to produce the truck bearing not MP-15-D-0151 within three days in the Office of District Nazir Collectorate Sagar. As per averments of the aforesaid notice, the same has been issued in compliance of order dated 18.7.2012, passed by respondent no.1 Collector in Food case No.222B/121/2011-12, whereby under the proceedings of Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, the aforesaid truck which was given earlier in the interim custody of the petitioner, has been confiscated. In the couRs.of arguments on admission in view of the provision of Section 6(C) of the Essential Comm...
Smt. Maya Dhagat Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
Smt. Maya Dhagat versus State of M.P.& Anr. Writ Petition No.15971 27. 9.2012: Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the State, on advance notice. The grievance of petitioner is that inspite of orders passed under similar circumstances in the case of an employee Surendra Kumar Gupta, similar treatment is denied to the petitioner. Petitioner claim grant of appointment on the post of Lab Assistant in accordance with the circulars and policy of the State Government and brings to the notice of this Court an order dated 14.10.2008 passed in W.P.No.19116/2003 in which initially in the case of one Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta, certain directions were issued by this Court and subsequently in Contempt Petition No.1090/2009 certain orders were passed on 16.5.20012 and in pursuance thereto relief was granted to Surendra Kumar Gupta, petitioner claim similar benefit. Keeping in view the aforesaid grounds raised by the petitioner with...
Kitabun Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Panchayat and Rural Deve ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
kitabun khan versus state 1 W.P.No.15918/2012 27/9/2012 Shri Surya Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amit Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents on advance notice. Challenging the order Annexure P/5 dated 28.8.2012 passed by the Collector, District Chhatarpur in the matter of appointment of Gram Rojgar Sahayak to the panchayat in question, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Records indicate that a process of selection for the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak was held in which petitioner, respondent No.5 and one Shri Ramesh Kushwaha have participated. The documents were assessed and Gram Panchayat prepared the merit list. In the merit list prepared Shri Ramesh Kushwaha was kept at Srl. No.1 having received 82.66 marks, respondent No.5 Sitaram Ahirwar was placed at Srl. No.2 having received 72.11% marks and petitioner's name appears at Srl. No.3 as she received 61.77 marks. However, when the aforesaid list prepared by the Gram Panchayat was placed before th...
Ranjit Singh Vs. Ravi Yadav
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
W.P.No.15091 o27. 09.12 Shri Adil Usmani, counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India for quashment of order dated 7.8.12 Annx.P/4 passed by I Civil Judge-II to the court of V Addl. Judge, Bhopal, whereby his application filed under Order 26 rule 9 of the CPC for appointment of Commissioner to call the report of spot in the suit for perpetual injunction, has been dismissed. Initially, the case was argued at length but in response of some query that in the available circumstances when the suit has beenfiled only for perpetual injunction by the petitioner then how the Commissioner could be appointed to submit the report regarding possession by carrying out the spot inspection, on which, the counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to raise all the objections and the grounds stated in this petition before the appellate court, on arising the occasion, in a ...
Dr. Anil Aurora Vs. Khuttan Lal Agrawal Dhramshala Trust Tamarhai, Jab ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
W.P.No.14745/2012 (Dr. Anil Aurora versus Kuttan Lal Agrawal Dharmashala & ors.) 27.09.2012 Heard Ms.Jailaxmi Aiyer, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 10.02.2006 passed by the Registrar/Sub-Divisional Officer, Public Trust Jabalpur, respondent No.4, whereby he has permitted the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to sell the premises of the Khuttan Lal Agrawal Dharmashala Trust Tamarhai, in which the petitioner is a tenant. It is submitted that the petitioner is a tenant in the premises with the respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the last 50 years and was paying regular rent, however, the respondents behind the back of the petitioner have obtained permission from the Sub-Divisional Officer for sale of the property which has also been affirmed by this court in W.P.No.7263/2007 by order dated 04.04.2012. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the respondents be prevented from auction...
Surendra Prasad Bhatt Vs. Smt. Chandra Kala Bhatt
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
1 W.P.NO.14954/12(I).27.9.2012. Shri Wakil Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 2.7.2012 (Ann. P.5) passed by 13th Additional District Judge, Bhopal in RCS No.33-A/10 whereby allowing the application of the respondent filed under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act (In short the Act.) in part the petitioner has been directed to pay her Rs.5,000/- for litigation expenses and Rs.100/- for every date of her appearance before the trial Court, as conveyance charge. The petitioner's counsel after taking me through papers placed on record said that impugned order being passed without holding any proceeding of reconciliation could not be termed to be inconsonance with the legal position, pursuant to it the same is not sustainable under the law but in response of the query of the Court that what wrong has been committed by the trial Court i...
Akhilesh Kumar Chanpuriya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2012
W.P.No.8302 / 2012 (Akhilesh Kumar Chanpuriya versus State of M.P.and otheRs.26-09-2012 Heard the petitioner, who has appeared in person, on the question of admission and interim relief. It is submitted by the petitioner that he has not filed this petition against any particular order but has prayed for a direction to the respondent No.5, Tahsildar Bijawar, District Chhatarpur, to take action against the respondent No.6 and ask him to surrender his original domicile certificate, dated 30-10-2007 and to prevent and prohibit the respondent No.6 from using the same. From a perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner alongwith the petition as well as the averments made by him it is apparent that the matter regarding entitlement of respondent No.6 to obtain A domicile certificate is already pending before the authority. It is also stated by the petitioner that he has already filed a writ petition relating to the aforesaid issue which is registered as W.P.No.9548/2012 in which notices h...
Raj Bahadur Khare Vs. Bundelkhand Kshtriya GramIn Bank
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :5823. OF 200.(s) Raj Bahadur Khare V/s Madhya Bharat Gramin Bank Pradhan Karyalaya, Sagar & Ors. Present : Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri R.K. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ashish Shroti, learned counsel for respondents/Bank. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER 26.9.2012 Challenging the orders passed by respondent bank removing the petitioner from service vide order Annexure P-1 dated 8.12.2005 and dismissing his appeal vide order dated 4.4.2006 Annexure P-3, petitioner has filed this writ petition.2. Petitioner Shri Raj Bahadur Khare at the relevant time when the impugned action took place was working as a Junior Management Grade-I in the respondent bank and was posted in Chandla Branch. He was appointed on 14.6.1978 and after earning various p...
Vinod Kumar Yadav Vs. the State of M.P.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-26-2012
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABAPLUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K.Gupta,J.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.809 OF 199.Vinot Kumar Yadav. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Nitin Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT (Delivered on the 26th day of September, 2012) This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 11/4/1997 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sagar in ST No.368/1996, whereby the appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced for three years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, one month's rigorous imprisonment was also directed.2. The prosecutions story, in short, is that on 21.9.1996 at about 7:00 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »